i.

Student Name:
Michelle C. Llaneta-Villamora

ii. Complete Case Title Citation:

Union of Filipro Employees v. Vivar, Jr., 205 SCRA 200

iii. Statement of the Issue:

Whether or not sales personnel are entitled to holiday pay.

iv. Complainant’s Arguments:

The petitioner insists that respondent's sales personnel are not field personnel
under Article 82 of the Labor Code. The respondent company controverts this
assertion.

v. Respondent’s Argument:
Under Article 82, field personnel are not entitled to holiday pay. Said article
defines field personnel as "non-agricultural employees who regularly perform their
duties away from the principal place of business or branch office of the employer and
whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable
certainty."

vi. Instruction Learned:

The criteria for granting incentive bonus are: (1) attaining or exceeding sales
volume based on sales target; (2) good collection performance; (3) proper compliance
with good market hygiene; (4) good merchandising work; (5) minimal market returns;
and (6) proper truck maintenance. (Rollo, p. 190). The above criteria indicate that
these sales personnel are given incentive bonuses precisely because of the difficulty
in measuring their actual hours of fieldwork. These employees are evaluated by the
result of their work and not by the actual hours of fieldwork, which are hardly
susceptible to determination.

Decision of the Court:

The order of the voluntary arbitrator is modified. The divisor to be used in
computing holiday pay shall be 251 days. The holiday pay as above directed shall be
computed from October 23, 1984. In all other respects, the order of the respondent
arbitrator is hereby affirmed.

vii. Ratio:
Rule IV, Book III of the Implementing Rules, which provides
"Rule IV Holidays with Pay. SECTION 1. Coverage. — This rule shall apply to
all employees except: (e) Field personnel and other employees whose time and
performance is unsupervised by the employer The clause "whose time and
performance is unsupervised by the employer" did not amplify but merely interpreted
and expounded the clause "whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be
determined with reasonable certainty." The former clause is still within the scope and
purview of Article 82, which defines field personnel. Hence, in deciding whether an
employee's actual working hours in the field can be determined with reasonable
certainty, query must be made as to whether or not such employee's time and
performance is constantly supervised by the employer. The criteria for granting
incentive bonus are: (1) attaining or exceeding sales volume based on sales target; (2)
good collection performance; (3) proper compliance with good market hygiene; (4)
good merchandising work; (5) minimal market returns and (6) proper truck
maintenance. The criteria indicate that these sales personnel are given incentive
bonuses precisely because of the difficulty in measuring their actual hours of
fieldwork. These employees are evaluated by the result of their work and not by the
actual hours of fieldwork, which are hardly susceptible to determination.
In San Miguel Brewery, Inc. v. Democratic Labor Organization, the Court had
occasion to discuss the nature of the job of a salesman. It states that: "The reasons for
excluding an outside salesman are fairly apparent. Such a salesman, to a greater
extent, works individually. There are no restrictions respecting the time he shall work
and he can earn as much or as little, within the range of his ability, as his ambition
dictates. In lieu of overtime, he ordinarily receives commissions as extra
compensation. He works away from his employer's place of business is not subject to
the personal supervision of his employer, and his employer has no way of knowing
the number of hours he works per day."